FSA FPL Rate My Team Thread 2014-15

CSF wrote: »

Are people really considering Ozil?? Are people particularly considering Giroud as anything other than a moneysaver though?

If someone decided to go for their first 6 games or so with Van Persie, Rooney, Mata (it's a strategy I went with over the 2nd half of last season to great success with Silva, Toure and Aguero/Dzeko) as opposed to Costa, Sturridge and Silva, I don't think they've any particular need to be worried that they've 3 high scoring players from one team rather than 3 from 3 teams (having this coverage thing).

The key is having the 7 attacking players who will score the highest total while they're in your team, rather than having a good spread of possibly lower performing attacking players.

I wouldn't consider Ozil myself but I've seen a few mention him. Poor at the end of last season and poor in the WC. Like Aguero, he needs a good month break away from football and training IMO.

If United are banging in the goals then by all means go for Van Persie, Rooney and Mata but that is tieing up 32 million of your budget and United would want to be banging in the goals. It's still also only three of your front eight attacking players.

Last season for example there were times when I had Suarez, Sturridge and Gerrard but I also had Yaya (City coverage), Hazard (Chelsea coverage) and usually either Ramsey (Arsenal coverage) or Rooney (United coverage).

The bottom line is that the bulk of your front 8 players are going to come from "coverage" of the top 5/6 teams. Think back about your team when it's been successful over the last couple of years and you'll realise this.

CSF wrote: »

Sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn't. Which is my point. It really doesn't need to be. A team of Gerrard, Silva, Toure, Hazard, Sturridge, Suarez, Aguero was frequently the best team to have last year (I usually had Eriksen or Lallana instead of Gerrard), that's only covering 3 of those teams. Who would have cried that they didn't have an Arsenal, Man United or Tottenham player during the long spells when Rooney, Ramsey and Eriksen weren't strong considerations.

You go with the player, not the team.

I think we're looking at the term "coverage" differently to be honest. In my mind the above is still coverage from the top teams because, as you say yourself, the best team to have last year was made up of players from the top six clubs.

The fact is you're taking the bulk of your attacking players from "coverage" of the top few teams. You're ignoring the other 14 clubs in the league practically.

What's your own team for the start of the season? Are you going with the 3 United players like above or a "coverage" of players from top teams like myself and most others?

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

You have just forced me into a serious rethink.

I considered Giroud but I remember thinking the same last season when Ozil was first signed and Giroud still failed to deliver.

CSF wrote: »

Well we agree on that part, but where does this talk of needing City coverage or Arsenal coverage come from then? It's a nonsense!!!

Reluctant to post my team here as I know I'm being observed on here by rivals. Does that sound unnecessarily paranoid?

Last season look at the attacking players most people had during the season:

City - Nasri, Silva, Aguero, Dzeko
Arsenal - Ramsey, Ozil, Giroud
United - Rooney, Mata
Spurs - Eriksen, Ade
Liverpool - Gerrard, Sterling, Suarez, Sturridge
Chelsea - Hazard/Oscar

They are from a "coverage" of the top six clubs. Its generally accepted that at some point during the season you are going to need "coverage" from one of the top six clubs when they are playing well. Can you honestly say you've ever gone a full season in this game without an attacking player from one of that top six? I know I certainly never have. Perhaps Spurs but certainly not the other five.

The clubs you need "coverage" from will revolve over the course of the season but the simple fact is you'll always have some form of "coverage" from these clubs at points when they are playing well.

To me to say "coverage" doesn't exist is totally incorrect IMO. I also don't think it would be as widely accepted a philosophy in the game if it didn't.

CSF wrote: »

You could very easily add Southampton and Everton in there and it becomes 8. Very easily.

I agree that it's a widely accepted philosophy, I'm still questioning it.

Not for the last six or seven years you couldn't. The mid table clubs will come and go but the top six generally stay the same (bar when a Sheikh shows up the odd time). United, Arsenal and Chelsea have been top four since god knows when. City since the Sheikh showed up and Liverpool have now joined the club.

I wouldn't be expecting the same for Southampton this season either! Swansea or Newcastle didn't hang around too long.

BY the way, you don't need to show your team but you could still answer my question re has your draft team a "coverage" for your front eight from the top six clubs?

CSF wrote: »

No but it'll be a different club this season. During the O'Neill tenure it was Villa. It's too simplistic a term to say that it's good to have players that play from the good terms. It's not a strategy,

What I was questioning was this notion of a need for a spread.

Well some club always finishes 6th or 7th. I already addressed this point tbh so you're rehashing old ground. A Michu, Cabaye or Remy would generally take up your 4th mid or 3rd striker spot.

It's not my "strategy" to have players from the top teams. It'd suit me if a bunch of lads around 7 or 8 mil perform but the reality is that generally doesn't happen. That is why straight away people can think of Lallana, Cabaye and Michu - the diamonds in the rough!

It's also why over the years the top scoring mids have been players like Lampard, Mata, Fabregas, Hazard and Gerrard. The top scoring strikers players like RVP, Drogba and Torres when he was decent.

CSF wrote: »

My team heavily figures 2 big teams at present with an unusually high smattering of the lesser clubs. Other teams will likely come in as their fixtures become more preferable. My argument is that I don't think I should be worried that I don't currently have players from these teams.

It's easy to say that now but if Liverpool beat Saints four or five nil in the first game of the season, would it not worry you that you have no Liverpool attacker?

I know I'd take alot more notice of a top six club with premium players running up a high score on day 1 than I will of a Hull or Leicester doing it.

I'll add, different people play this game with different strategies and systems. I stick to the tried and tested from the experience I have and it's delivered finishes in the top 12k, 500, 10k and 2k in the last four years.

I'm not about to change taking "coverage" into account when it is clearly working for me.

Paully D wrote: »

Very interesting looking at the Rate My Team thread from this time last year.

Bale, Van Wolfswinkle, Mignolet, Soldado, Van Persie, Bellamy, Coutinho, Anelka, Walcott, Turner, Berbatov, Snodgrass, Connolly/Hudson/Turner, Negredo, Koren and Kone were all quite popular across the board but for one reason or another (sold in the case of Bale, injury, poor form etc) had a lot less or no impact over the course of the season in comparison to what was expected.

Mertesacker, Koscienly, Terry, Hazard, Coleman and Bony were probably the only players, from the scan I gave the thread, that a lot were championing who turned out to be undoubted successes.

Only a tiny few (again from the scan I gave the thread, it was by no means a thorough analysis) had the top ranked goalkeepers (Howard or Szcezeny), the top ranked midfielders (Yaya, Gerrard, Lallana, Nasri Silva or Ramsey) or top ranked forwards (Sturridge, Rooney, Giroud, or Lambert) in their initial sides. The defenders were well covered to be fair.

Make of that what you will.

Excellent post Pauly. It's why I'm not putting a huge amount of work into my initial draft.

Like last year, I may well have used my wildcard by seven on the evening of the first day.